Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[LeafByNiggle]

Since he was the Emperor, it would have. Or would at least have been commented on. Unless the definition already covered same sex marriages.

You are on very shaky ground trying to argue for the existence of same-sex marriage from the non-existence of laws or comments against it. There were no laws or comments against same sex marriage in the USA for much of its history because people at that time assumed legal marriage to be between a man and a woman. Only in recent times in response to the push to extend that definition has it become necessary to be more specific.

 

[DrTaffy]

I am not suggesting that their relationship be forbidden. I am suggesting that their relationship not be celebrated and promoted as normal by our society.

You are suggesting that their relationship be actively discriminated against by the state, compared to that of heterosexual couples. Even when the same sex couple are raising children and the heterosexual couple is not.

No good reason has been given for this discrimination.

For that, I believe, does hurt the moral fabric of our society, especially confused kids.

You have provided no evidence to support this assertion, and the scientific consensus rejects it.

Only when compared to promiscuous homosexuality. But that is an unfair comparison because it is not the only option open to those involved.

The state has two options: give legal recognition to same sex marriage, or withhold it. The evidence is that withholding it causes unnecessary mortality among homosexuals. This is a serious moral challenge that the lobby against gay marriage needs to address, not sneer at.

DrTaffy;12076693:

Why shouldn’t Catholics have to put up with being treated as second class citizens, by your logic? There is

evidence that Catholics are more likely to commit criminal offenses than the general public, for example.

This claim was thoroughly discussed and adequately dismissed in another thread. Go back to that thread an read what I wrote about it.

Go back and read what I wrote in that thread. Nonetheless, nothing written there changed the basic fact of elevated criminality among Catholics. So there remains a stronger case against Catholicism, on this argument, than against homosexual relationships.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No good reason has been given for this discrimination.

I have given what I consider to be good reason. We will just have to agree to disagree.

You have provided no evidence to support this assertion, and the scientific consensus rejects it.

I may disagree with the applicability of the criteria used in those studies for qualifying harm to the moral fabric of society. They may assume proxies that can be more easily measured, but I can still question the appropriateness of those proxies.

The state has two options: give legal recognition to same sex marriage, or withhold it. The evidence is that withholding it causes unnecessary mortality among homosexuals. This is a serious moral challenge that the lobby against gay marriage needs to address, not sneer at.

I am not sneering. I am merely stating a fact. If homosexuals, without benefit of legal recognition of marriage, choose to engage in a risky lifestyle, that is their free choice, not necessarily something that government can or should step in and do by extending the meaning of marriage.

Nonetheless, nothing written there changed the basic fact of elevated criminality among Catholics.

That is not an establish fact. You have incorrectly deduced it from incarceration statistics.

 

[DrTaffy]

Let me dispense with this “objective evidence” criterion once and for all.

I can quite see why you would want to.

Does this mean that you accept once and for all that there is no objective argument against recognising gay marriage?

The implication inherent in this argument is that the anti-gay marriage group cannot morally justify imposing their will on the rest of society without presenting what everyone agrees is objective evidence to back up their belief. I claim that the “objective evidence” criterion only applies when trying to convince someone of your belief. It does not apply to the question of the majority imposing its will on a minority.

Why not?

If a liberal majority decide to force Catholics to perform gay marriages, allow Satanists equal use of their churches and blessed sacraments, and send their children to the “Richard Dawkins” chain of Atheist Academies, would that be perfectly moral in your eyes?

Or is their some moral imperative on the majority to consider whether or not this issue is any of their business?

To prove that point I will pick an analogous issue – like the selection of a national leader such as the President. Just like the gay marriage debate, there are people on both sides who strongly believe in their choice. Just like the gay marriage debate, when trying to convince someone of the rightness of your choice, you normally employ what you think is objective evidence.

Not a good comparison. (Assuming for the sake of this argument that you and I were in the same nation) : we have to elect a president, and who that president is will effect us all equally. So after attempts at debate, a brute force vote is really the only answer, with no moral repercussion.

Gay marriage only directly effects those who want to marry a same sex partner and all those opposed, by definition, are therefore not directly effected by it. Denying homosexual couples legal recognition directly effects their daily life, even increases their mortality rates. Allowing same sex marriage, per se, has at best a negligible effect on those opposed.

It is a very clear case of an asymmetrical, bullying imposition by the majority of their beliefs on a minority, on an issue that does not directly effect those opposed to it.

So you forcing your religious beliefs on this beleaguered minority is immoral, in my view. You want to be left to discriminate against women in your priesthood, so you should be willing to stand back and let them marry.

But here is the key thing. At the end of the day, after everyone has tried their best to convince the other side of the rightness of their choice, the will of the majority does get imposed on the rest of the people, including those who did not share the belief in the rightness of that choice.

So if liberals (or homosexuals, or Muslims, or Satanists) achieve a majority, anything they choose to impose on you would be morally fine, in your eyes?

 

[frobert]

I really don’t want to argue anything with you, frobert.

I am simply pleased that you agree with my statement:

So we can agree that, historically and culturally, marriage was defined as a union of a male and a female.

Since the concept of “marriage” proceeded the state of New York…the state has no authority to redefine marriage. unless it can show a definite benefit to the state and society…rather than a politically motivated agenda.

I am not a historian, if you say so I will take your word at face value. I am not an attorney either but I believe that the state of NY has all the authority it needs to be able to define civil marriage in their constitution. You will need to find a NYS constitutional lawyer if you believe that is a problem for NY. Hey fund a law suit, it might be fun.

So being neither a historian or lawyer my plans for the weekend are to be a disgrace.

“There is a community of the spirit.
Join it, and feel the delight
of walking in the noisy street
and being the noise.
Drink all your passion,
and be a disgrace.
Close both eyes
to see with the other eye”
Rumi

 

[DrTaffy]

You are on very shaky ground trying to argue for the existence of same-sex marriage from the non-existence of laws or comments against it.

Since I am not doing that, no I am not.

Rather Zoltan is arguing that same sex marriage definitely did not exist in Ancient Rome, despite many references to it, solely because he cannot find a reference to an explicit law about it.

I may disagree with the applicability of the criteria used in those studies for qualifying harm to the moral fabric of society. They may assume proxies that can be more easily measured, but I can still question the appropriateness of those proxies.

But what you apparently cannot do is support your assertion that children are harmed by same sex parenting.

I am not sneering. I am merely stating a fact. If homosexuals, without benefit of legal recognition of marriage, choose to engage in a risky lifestyle, that is their free choice, not necessarily something that government can or should step in and do by extending the meaning of marriage.

Government action is causing unnnecessary mortality among a small, yet significant, minority.

Just dismissing this is sneering. They ‘choose’ this risky behaviour, according to the evidence, as a direct result of the way they are discriminated against by society - the very discrimination you are defending here.

If this were Catholics (say your own children) being driven to drink, drugs or suicide by government endorsed discrimination, would you be so blase?

That is not an establish fact. You have incorrectly deduced it from incarceration statistics.

No, the incarceration statistics are the thing I am referring to. Catholics are more likely than the general population to be convicts or ex-cons - by the logic espoused by some here (apparently including you, as you are defending it?) this would justify State action to discourage or stamp out Catholicism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does this mean that you accept once and for all that there is no objective argument against recognising gay marriage?

It just means what I think is an objective argument and what you think is an objective argument can be different.

If a liberal majority decide to force Catholics to perform gay marriages, allow Satanists equal use of their churches and blessed sacraments, and send their children to the “Richard Dawkins” chain of Atheist Academies, would that be perfectly moral in your eyes?

No it would not. But I would argue against such action on its merits and not just try to dismiss them on the grounds that they are imposing their will on someone who just does not agree with them.

Or is their some moral imperative on the majority to consider whether or not this issue is any of their business?

There is always such a moral imperative. And in the case of gay marriage, I think that question has been considered and rejected.

Not a good comparison.

Of course not, because it undermines your argument.

(Assuming for the sake of this argument that you and I were in the same nation) : we have to elect a president, and who that president is will effect us all equally. So after attempts at debate, a brute force vote is really the only answer, with no moral repercussion.

How can you be so sure there are no moral repercussions? One candidate may be strongly in favor of gay marriage. The other candidate may be strongly against it. Are you sure you want to say that there are no moral repercussions to electing a president, or whatever they have in Wales?

Gay marriage only directly effects those who want to marry a same sex partner.
Only if we limit gay marriage to a framed certificate you just hang on the wall. But I disagree that full equality of marriage has no effect on others besides the gay couple.

So you forcing your religious beliefs on this beleaguered minority is

immoral, in my view. You want to be left to discriminate against women in your priesthood, so you should be willing to stand back and let them marry.
Huh? Don’t see how that follows at all.

So if liberals (or homosexuals, or Muslims, or Satanists) achieve a majority, anything

they choose to impose on you would be morally fine, in your eyes?
No, but that is one of the consequences of living in a multi-cultural democratic society. I would hate it, of course, but that would just be too bad for me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But what you apparently cannot do is support your assertion that children are harmed by same sex parenting.

I believe I (and others in this thread) have supported that assertion using what we consider a more appropriate criteria for harm.

Government action is causing unnecessary mortality among a small, yet significant, minority.

You mean government** inaction**, don’t you? (the failure to extend marriage to gays). Government action is not the solution to every problem.

If this were Catholics (say your own children) being driven to drink, drugs or suicide by government endorsed discrimination, would you be so blase?

I am not blase about the plight of gays. I just think more harm than good would be done by normalizing gay marriage.

No, the incarceration statistics are the thing I am referring to. Catholics are more likely than the general population to be convicts or ex-cons

If that is what you are referring to, then call it that. Don’t make the automatic leap to “elevated criminality”, which goes beyond the incarceration statistics and makes assumptions about the reasons for the incarceration - reasons which you have not bothered to consider critically.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am not a historian, if you say so I will take your word at face value. I am not an attorney either but I believe that the state of NY has all the authority it needs to be able to define civil marriage in their constitution. You will need to find a NYS constitutional lawyer if you believe that is a problem for NY. Hey fund a law suit, it might be fun.

Naaaa…I’m not a lawyer either. I’ll leave the lawsuits up to the gay activists.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage). When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

The State of NY has the authority to enact traffic laws to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that car crashes will be less destructive.

The State of NY assesses the pre-existing factors that influence safe driving – the age when most persons can handle the responsibility of driving, the effect of alcohol on drivers, the best way to construct roadways, maximum safe speeds – in order to create rules that best accord with these pre-existing realities.

The same should be true of marriage.

So being neither a historian or lawyer my plans for the weekend are to be a disgrace.

“There is a community of the spirit.
Join it, and feel the delight
of walking in the noisy street
and being the noise.
Drink all your passion,
and be a disgrace.
Close both eyes
to see with the other eye”
Rumi

I truly hope you enjoyed a wonderful disgraceful weekend.

 

[kanrok]

Government action is causing unnnecessary mortality among a small, yet significant, minority.

That’s a mighty strong assertion.

What governmental action are you asserting is causing unnecessary mortality?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s a mighty strong assertion.

What governmental action are you asserting is causing unnecessary mortality?

He has previously cited statistics that show gays live longer if they get married. Therefore anything that prevents them from getting married is killing them, I suppose.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nor are you apparently finding anything to say that it was not. After all, why would you expect to find an explicit reference to same sex marriage in law? It doesn’t raise any new issues that are not covered by the existing laws. But if it were not valid, wouldn’t all those who commented so bitterly on the same sex marriages of the Emperor and others have mentioned that fact?

Yet we find many references to same sex marriages in Ancient Rome, and nothing to say that they were not legally valid?

There were many references to same sex relationships in Greek and Roman history…homosexuality was a prevalent practice…but Greco Roman law never did DEFINE a same sex relationship as a marriage. History also shows no outcry from those in un-natural relationships demanding that the government re-define marriage.

Since Roman and Greek law defined marriage as man and woman for the purpose of reproduction…a same sex relationship could not be defined as a marriage and therefore would not be legally valid.

How do you explain Cicero arguing that Curio was legally obliged to pay Antonius’ debts if the same sex marriage was not legally binding?

Mark Anthony has been working as a high paid “boy prostitute” before Curio took him in.
Curio encouraged Anthony run up debts and promised to cover them. Their relationship has nothing to do with the debts. Cicero argued that Curio was responsible for Anthony’s debts because he (Curio) had stood surety.

You are probably stretching history by referring to Cicero’s statement:

“…You (Mark Anthony) were as firmly wedded to Curio as if he had given you a married woman’s dress…”

What Cicero said has no bearing on the fact that Roman law did not include a same sex, adolescent relationship as a marriage.

Since he was the Emperor, it would have. Or would at least have been commented on. Unless the definition already covered same sex marriages.

The definition did not cover same sex relationships…the Emperor could call his “set up” anything he wanted…but no Emperor ever changed the definition of marriage in Roman law.

 

[CaptFun]

I KNOW it gets cold in the winter but … :bigyikes::nope::doh2:

Yeah boy Illinois legislators … THAT’s been America’s problem all along. Not enough o’ THAT!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Since I am not doing that, no I am not.

Rather Zoltan is arguing that same sex marriage definitely did not exist in Ancient Rome, despite many references to it, solely because he cannot find a reference to an explicit law about it. :

What do they call a circular argument?..I think this where we are now…or else this is a never ending story.

Same sex “marriages” did NOT exist in any civilized country with a written history,
If there were “references” to a **same sex relationship **as a marriage…they would be incorrect and have no legal stature.

I have posted both Roman and Greek laws defining marriage as between men and women for the purpose of reproduction. Nowhere do I find the legal definition including any form of homosexual relationships. The cultures recognized homosexual relationships but not as a marriage.

I maintain that historically and traditionally, marriage is defined as a relationship between man and woman.

To promote acceptance of their lifestyle, homosexual advocates, wrongly claim that ancient cultures defined marriage to include same sex relationships. This is not true.
While ancient cultures accepted homosexual relationships as well as other perversions, and probably refereed to them (wrongly) as a “marriage”, their culturally and legal definition of marriage remained as between man and woman.

 

[DrTaffy]

It just means what I think is an objective argument and what you think is an objective argument can be different.

That is quite different from what you claimed earlier:

I claim that the “objective evidence” criterion only applies when trying to convince someone of your belief. It does not apply to the question of the majority imposing its will on a minority.

So which is it? Are you arguing that the majority always has the right (not just the ability) to impose its will on the minority, or do we just disagree on what criteria should be used to justify whether or not the majority should impose it will on the minority?

(Assuming for the sake of this argument that you and I were in the same nation) : we have to elect a president, and who that president is will effect us all equally. So after attempts at debate, a brute force vote is really the only answer, with no moral repercussion.

I don’t think we understand eachother.

Since we have to elect a president, and that president effects me just as much as you, it cannot be immoral for me to vote for the president I want. On the other hand, it would, in my opinion, be immoral for me to even try to impose my opinion on you, even by a democratic process, on an issue that did not effect me (or an innocent third party) at all.

So if, for some reason, we had to go on holiday together, I have every right to vote for the destination I think best, after exhausting all arbitration prospects.

If you were going on your own, it would be arrogant for me to vote at all. Go where you want.

On the gay marriage issue, the closest you have come to a reason why you should have any say on whether same sex couples should be able to get married is that you would thereby not be able to insist that the state indoctrinate other people’s children into your views on homosexuality.

Not only does this not follow from gay marriage, but it is not something you should expect to be able to demand in the first place.

You want to be left to discriminate against women in your priesthood, so you should be willing to stand back and let them marry.

Simple parallel. Many people find your discrimination against women immoral. But since it is your religion, and only effects those who (presumably) share that religion, we have to put up with it. And your male only priests get all sorts of legal rights and powers from the state.

In the same way, even though you feel that same sex marriage is wrong, and since you can simply choose not to marry someone of the same sex, you should really accept that others do not agree and live and let live.

Instead you want to force your beliefs on those who do not share them. That, IMO, is why this issue stands out from all the other (to me) weird things you believe. This one you are explicitly ordered to shove down my throat.

 

[DrTaffy]

He has previously cited statistics that show gays live longer if they get married. Therefore anything that prevents them from getting married is killing them, I suppose.

Exactly. We can quibble about whether that should be called governent action, or lack of government action, but there are hard facts that continuing the discrimination against same sex couple does directly cost lives.

So when the Catholic church spends “another £100 000” on preventing same sex marriage, it is at least trying to do something that will cost lives.

This requires strong moral justification, in my opinion.

 

[DrTaffy]

There were many references to same sex relationships in Greek and Roman history…homosexuality was a prevalent practice…but Greco Roman law never did DEFINE a same sex relationship as a marriage.

Fine. Prove it.

Since Roman and Greek law defined marriage as man and woman for the purpose of reproduction…a same sex relationship could not be defined as a marriage and therefore would not be legally valid.

Prove it. There are plenty of references to same sex marriages, with no proviso saying that they were not legally valid, and nothing in the law to say that they were not.

You are probably stretching history by referring to Cicero’s statement:

“…You (Mark Anthony) were as firmly wedded to Curio as if he had given you a married woman’s dress…”

What Cicero said has no bearing on the fact that Roman law did not include a same sex, adolescent relationship as a marriage.

But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron’s robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock.

Cicero very clearly refers to this relationship as a marriage with legal responsibilities.

The definition did not cover same sex relationships…the Emperor could call his “set up” anything he wanted…but no Emperor ever changed the definition of marriage in Roman law.

The Emperor’s word was law. Had he being going against the law, the lack of any commentary on that would be extraordinary.

Not that I am making the argument from silence that this proves that Rome had full legal equality for same sex marriages. I am just pointing out that you are making an argument from silence that requires ignoring a lot of evidence to even claim ‘silence’.

Same sex “marriages” did NOT exist in any civilized country with a written history,
If there were “references” to a **same sex relationship **as a marriage…they would be incorrect and have no legal stature.

Prove it.

I have posted both Roman and Greek laws defining marriage as between men and women for the purpose of reproduction.

Not on this thread, I don’t think. If I’m wrong, please do show me.

I, on the other hand, have posted many references to historical same sex marriage here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So which is it? Are you arguing that the majority always has the right (not just the ability) to impose its will on the minority, or do we just disagree on what criteria should be used to justify whether or not the majority should impose it will on the minority?

I’m not sure in what sense you are using the word “right”. If you mean as defined by law, then yes, the majority does have that right, as long as the thing they are trying to impose is not in violation of some other law. Until the gay marriage issue is settled law, there is no reason why the majority would not have the legal right to impose a ban on same sex marriage.

If, on the other hand, you mean “right” in the sense of “moral right”, then the answer is “it depends”. If the thing that is being imposed is unjust (such as slavery as it was practiced in America before 1860), then the majority does not have the moral right to impose that on the minority. But if the thing being imposed is just (such as denying the mentally ill the right to buy a gun), then the majority does have the right to impose such a restriction. Therefore to decide if the majority has the moral right to impose a ban on same-sex marriage, one would first have to know if such a ban was just or unjust. But people differ on that question too. Therefore it is impossible to settle the question of gay marriage by simply declaring it a matter of the majority imposing something on a minority. One needs to deal with the issue** on its merits**. Which is why it is so unproductive to try to dismiss the question without addressing the merits of the issue.

I don’t think we understand eachother.

Since we have to elect a president, and that president effects me just as much as you, it cannot be immoral for me to vote for the president I want.

As I said before, it is possible that one candidate is very pro gay marriage and the other candidate is very anti gay marriage. Therefore electing a president is effectively equivalent to voting for or against a ban on gay marriage. In which case the parallel stands even stronger. Anything that you can say about voting for a ban on gay marriage you can also say about voting for a president. And as for having to elect a president, we also have to decide on gay marriage policy. It can’t be left in the air. It must be decided one way or the other.

On the other hand, it would, in my opinion, be immoral for me to even try to impose my opinion on you, even by a democratic process, on an issue that did not effect me (or an innocent third party) at all.

You have made that claim many times before (that gay marriage policy would only affect gays) and I have **not **conceded it. In fact I have put forth reasons why I think it potentially affects everyone.

On the gay marriage issue, the closest you have come to a reason why you should have any say on whether same sex couples should be able to get married is that you would thereby not be able to insist that the state indoctrinate other people’s children into your views on homosexuality.

I reject your characterization of gay marriage as something gay people do. It is something that government does for them. At least that is the part of gay marriage that is being debated. There is no argument over what gay people should be allowed to do. The only argument is over what the government needs to do for them to recognize their marriage.

Simple parallel. Many people find your discrimination against women immoral. But since it is your religion, and only effects those who (presumably) share that religion, we have to put up with it. And your male only priests get all sorts of legal rights and powers from the state. Instead you want to force your beliefs on those who do not share them.

I answered that with the Presidential election parallel. There are many instances in society where implications of beliefs are forced on those who do not share them. Some of those instances are immoral and some are not. The fact that the implications of a belief are being forced onto some who do not share that belief is not reason in and of itself to declare it immoral.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Fine. Prove it.

“The marriage itself was in fact not regarded as having been fully consummated until the first child was born in the house. Marriage to the Romans was about procreation and nothing else, so it was essential that children should be born inside the house.”
roman-empire.net/society/soc-marriage.html

“Ancient Roman law recognized three forms of marriage. Confarreatio was marked by a highly solemnized ceremony involving numerous witnesses and animal sacrifice. It was usually reserved for patrician families. Coemptio, used by many plebeians, was effectively marriage by purchase, while usus, the most informal variety, was marriage simply by mutual consent and evidence of extended cohabitation. Roman law generally placed the woman under the control of her husband and on the same footing as children. Under Roman law no slave could contract marriage with either another slave or a free person, but the union of male and female slaves was recognized for various purposes.”

(No mention of same sex unions as MARRIAGE)
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366247/marriage-law

“First, although the participants in Roman same-sex weddings clearly took the proceedings seriously, they almost certainly did not regard such a wedding ceremony as a prelude to legitimate Roman marriage, which in any case would certainly not have resulted from such a ceremony. Second, when we probe more deeply into the relationship between the Roman wedding ceremony and legitimate marriage, a possibility of some interest emerges: the Romans, encouraged by the structure of legal rules concerning marriage, may have come to understand wedding ceremonies as a ritual that could be and was formally detached from legitimate marriage; and so the ceremony could be conducted when there was occasion to invoke, by way of forceful analogy, the broader social institution of marriage, but without making any necessary or specific claim to legitimate marriage itself. In the case of same-sex weddings, this possibility is interesting because it implies that the male participants in Roman same-sex weddings did not necessarily view legitimate marriage (or some semblance of legitimate marriage) as even the desired outcome of their ceremony.”
umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html

The above is an important consideration because it confirms that fact that Roman homosexuals had no desire to redefine marriage.

“While it is a relatively new practice to grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[43][44] Ancient Greek same-sex relationships were like modern companionate marriages, unlike their different-sex marriages in which the spouses had few emotional ties, and the husband had freedom to engage in outside sexual liaisons. The Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex relationships”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

stoa.org/projects/demos/article_women_and_family?page=all

ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings2.html

Prove it. There are plenty of references to same sex marriages, with no proviso saying that they were not legally valid, and nothing in the law to say that they were not.

That’s true.
But nowhere in Greek or Roman law is a same sex relationship defined as a marriage.

Cicero very clearly refers to this relationship as a marriage with legal responsibilities.

Cicero is welcome to REFER to Anthony and Curio’s man-boy relationship as a marriage or whatever. That does not change Roman law. Also, remember that Cicero was not arguing that marriage, or any social relationship, obliged Curio to pay Anthony’s debts. He argued that Curio was responsible because he promised to cover those debts.

The Emperor’s word was law. Had he being going against the law, the lack of any commentary on that would be extraordinary.

Not that I am making the argument from silence that this proves that Rome had full legal equality for same sex marriages. I am just pointing out that you are making an argument from silence that requires ignoring a lot of evidence to even claim ‘silence’.

What evidence would that be?

There is not a shred of evidence proving that Greek and Roman law redefined marriage to include same sex relationships.

I have posted definitions of marriage from Roman and Greek laws. They are very clear about men and women…no mention of “persons”

I cannot produce evidence that does not exist. If anyone can provide conflicting facts, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Until then…Dr taffy is running around in circles.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Exactly. We can quibble about whether that should be called governent action, or lack of government action, but there are hard facts that continuing the discrimination against same sex couple does directly cost lives.

So when the Catholic church spends “another £100 000” on preventing same sex marriage, it is at least trying to do something that will cost lives.

This requires strong moral justification, in my opinion.

The difference between government action and government inaction is not a quibbling matter. The default position on any given issue should always be no action. For that reason it takes more to justify extending marriage to include same-sex relationships than leaving the law as it has been.

But in this particular case, the cost of lives you refer to is primarily the result of the free-will choices made by those who put themselves at risk. The health benefits of living in a monogamous relationship - even a same-sex monogamous relationship - can be realized by anyone who chooses to do so. Do we really need government to take extreme measures to encourage people to do what is for their own good when they could have done it without that particular encouragement?